Again, I said I partially conceded the point above. I wasn't implying that using the players we did was a handicap, and I am not intending to diminish the accomplishments of teams who won championships with all variety of players. The championships themselves should count the same.
What I am saying is, these accomplishments are unique to college hockey, and were important to USA Hockey and Minnesota Hockey. An NHL commissioner (forget whom) called Minnesota's championship in 1974 at the time "arguably the most important thing to happen to USA Hockey".
These things showed American kids it wasn't just Canada's game. That US kids could compete with and beat teams with rosters heavy on Canadians.
Sincerely, I'm not trying to toot Minnesota's horn here. I know people here hate provincialism and I know I have a tendancy to be very provincial. I just don't know how else to explain what really are truths.
By recruiting primarily Minnesotans at the University of Minnesota, John Mariucci gave more opportunities to play at the next level to Minnesota kids.
During Mariucci's tenure, high school hockey programs in Minnesota grew ten fold. Thus more and more Minnesotans began to play the game.
Minnesotans comprised over half the 1960 and 1980 US Olympic Hockey rosters. These Gold Medal teams gave inspiration to play to many other kids around the country.
It's why John Mariucci is not just in the US Hockey Hall of Fame, but in THE Hockey Hall of Fame as a builder. How many other college hockey coaches are in both Halls as a builder?
The impact of Minnesota's recruiting practices WERE significant to the growth of hockey in this country. All I'm saying is that would be a factor of mine when determining Minnesota's "greatness" as a program.
I don't know quite what to say. Tied a piece of shoe leather to a string out of boredom and threw it in to see if a bullhead might come along and I get a you, Happy? You're a trout at least, aren't you? You don't belong in this ditchwater.
